a comparison of nuclear thermal to nuclear electric propulsion for interplanetary missions
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
A Comparison of Nuclear Thermal to Nuclear Electric Propulsion for Interplanetary Missions

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 31

A Comparison of Nuclear Thermal to Nuclear Electric Propulsion for Interplanetary Missions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 175 Views
  • Uploaded on

A Comparison of Nuclear Thermal to Nuclear Electric Propulsion for Interplanetary Missions. Mike Osenar Mentor: LtCol Lawrence. Overview. Introduction Objective Establish parameters NTR Design NEP Design Discussion and Conclusion. Introduction.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' A Comparison of Nuclear Thermal to Nuclear Electric Propulsion for Interplanetary Missions' - dior


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
a comparison of nuclear thermal to nuclear electric propulsion for interplanetary missions

A Comparison of Nuclear Thermal to Nuclear Electric Propulsion for Interplanetary Missions

Mike Osenar

Mentor: LtCol Lawrence

overview
Overview
  • Introduction
  • Objective
  • Establish parameters
  • NTR Design
  • NEP Design
  • Discussion and Conclusion
introduction
Introduction
  • NASA is developing Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) systems for Project Prometheus, a series of interplanetary missions
  • What happened to Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) systems? Should NASA only invest in NEP systems?
objectives
Objectives
  • Prove the feasibility of different nuclear propulsion systems for interplanetary missions which fit in a single launch vehicle
  • Compare NTR and NEP system designs for given missions

Method: take a set of inputs, use a series of calculations and SPAD process along with reasonable design assumptions to design a spacecraft to reach a given ΔV

establish parameters
Establish Parameters
  • Establish ΔV’s and flight times for both NEP and NTR systems to Jupiter and Pluto
  • Determine launch vehicle payload restrictions
  • Obtain design points – inert mass fractions based on thruster specific impulses
establish parameters1
Establish Parameters
  • NEP ΔV’s and flight times based on AIAA 2002-4729 – low thrust gravity assist trajectories
  • NTR data derived from NEP data
establish parameters2
Establish Parameters
  • Relationship between NEP ΔV/TOF and NTR ΔV/TOF
  • Table shows that NTR has same TOF for 50% of the ΔV
  • NTR numbers based on AIAA 1992-3778
establish parameters5
Establish Parameters

Design points established from Dumbkopff charts

ntr design
NTR Design

Size system so that it meets 3 specifications

  • Under max payload mass
  • Fits in payload fairing
  • Reaches required ΔV
ntr design1
NTR Design

Inputs from Dumbkopff: finert, ΔV

Assumptions

Po = 7 MPa

Isp = 1000 s – hydrogen

Tc = 3200 K

T/W = .3 – experimented, balance between high thrust short burn time and low reactor mass (low power)

ntr design2
NTR Design
  • Equations for basic parameters
ntr design3
NTR Design

Subsystem Sizing (note: volume constraint height)

Payload

1000 kg to Jupiter, 500 to Pluto

based on densities of actual space mission

sized as 2 m tall cylinder

Tank

biggest part – hydrogen has low density

ntr design4
NTR Design

Turbo Pump Feed System

Nuclear Reactor

Radiation Shield

standard SPAD design – 18 cm Be, 5 cm W, 5 cm LiH2

ntr design5
NTR Design

Nozzle

Columbium, designed to be ideally expanded in space (ε=100)

Miscellaneous

Avionics

Reactor containment vessel

Attitude thrusters

Structural mass

ntr design6

Payload

Propellant Tank

Pump

Shield

Reactor

Nozzle

NTR Design

Achievable ΔV verified with Rocket Equation

Vehicle height determined by stacking parts according to Figure

ntr design7
NTR Design

Final Results of NTR Design

nep design
NEP Design

Size system so that it meets 2 specifications

  • Under max payload mass
  • Reaches required ΔV

No size requirement – analysis showed that NEP systems would violate mass constraints before volume – no low-density hydrogen propellant

nep design1
NEP Design

Power Source

  • Nuclear Reactors (P>6 kWe)
    • Critical reactors designed as small as 6 kWe
  • Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG) (P<6 kWe)
  • Solar?
nep design2
NEP Design
  • Solar Power proportional to inverse square of distance from sun
  • to receive power equal to 1 m2 solar panel in earth orbit, would need 27 m2 panel at Jupiter and 1562 m2 panel at Pluto
  • does not factor in degradation – significant for long lifetimes
  • engineering, GNC concerns with huge solar array
  • mass too much
nep design3
NEP Design
  • Thrusters based on actual designed thrusters from SPAD
  • Baselines used: T6, XIPS-25, RIT-XT
  • Design allowed thrusters to be clustered in groups of up to 3 – proven to work, increases force and power appropriately
nep design4
NEP Design
  • Use NTR equations for propellant mass, thrust, mass flow and power
  • NEP equations:
nep design5
NEP Design

Subsystem Design

  • Power system
  • Propellant tank
  • Thruster mass
  • Power conditioning mass
  • Other mass (structural, feed systems, avionics, etc.)
nep design6
NEP Design

NEP Design Results

discussion and conclusion
Discussion and Conclusion
  • Overall, ΔV’s were low – real science mission would need higher ΔV to capture orbit of planet, maneuver
  • Accurate data on EP trajectories was desired over ΔV’s for realistic missions
discussion and conclusion1
Discussion and Conclusion

NTR Design

  • Almost failed Pluto design – tank volume
  • High thrust, impulsive burn more reliable – operates for short time
  • Much less efficient then NEP
  • Other applications? launch vehicle, human Mars exploration
discussion and conclusion2
Discussion and Conclusion

NEP Design

  • Low thrust, long trip times
  • Lifetime analysis – electric thrusters tested to 3.5 years – less than Jupiter TOF
  • Space Nuclear reactors require extensive testing
discussion and conclusion3
Discussion and Conclusion
  • Testing – extensive testing needed for either system – facilities, money needed to test for operational lifetime
  • Safety – perennial concern with nuclear systems, real hazards to be considered
  • Radiological hazard – higher with NEP (low power but long burn time), must be addressed for either system
discussion and conclusion4
Discussion and Conclusion
  • NASA probably right to go with NEP for interplanetary missions
  • Much stands between now and operational nuclear propulsion system
  • Much to be gained from nuclear propulsion technology
ad